Yes, I think that's right. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that corporations have freedom of speech too and can use their money to promote their speech... Add in the fact that the 2 party structure has become fossilized -- or should I say gerrymandered -- and there is no room for real change within the system. Personally, I am coming to the point of view that a parlimentary system might be a breath of fresh air for the country.
It not my responsibility to support the poor and helpless of this country. It is not my responsibility to support the rich and corporations of this country. It is not my responsibility to support either the poor or rich of any other country on this earth. It is my responsibility to support my parents when and if they can no longer do it. It is my responsibility to support my child his entire life if it should be neccesary. It is my responsibility to take care of my own. It is a bonus if I have enough left over and am able and willing to give to the needs of others. But for the government to take, by the force of a gun (ultimately), and give to someone else is not right or proper. The government has no legal authority to take my money and give it to someone else, i.e. welfare programs. What allows it is precedence and the courts failing to uphold the constituion. The government does have the authority and take my money for use of the common good, i.e. roads, bridges and the military. We should each take care of our own and charge those that do not, the cost of caring for theirs. Then we can do away with a number of these programs and save us lots of money. But this is not a perfect world and we are and further will be subject to the whims of those we vote for. As someone once said and I roughly paraphrase - when the people realize they can vote themselves money we are in trouble. Make 'em pretty, Chris
I agree with most of what you said above. But as far as the people that can't take care of themselves, are you suggesting we just let them die out in the streets? I agree that the current welfare, SSI programs are prone to rampant abuse by those that are simply lazy. This system needs an overhaul, but we are morally obligated to take care of those that legitimately can not take care of themselves, imo.
Could be. Hey have you ever seen Britain's parliamentary meetings on CSPAN. If you want a good laugh... These guys really inject a sense of humor into the political process. They seem to have a lot of fun.
"We should each take care of our own and charge those that do not, the cost of caring for theirs." This is what I said. I agree we do have a morale obligation to care for them. But let us charge the family for that care, or a co-pay or something. There are to many people out there willing to turn thier parents or children over to the government to care for simply because they do not want to be bothered. Send them a bill for the care and perhaps they will develop some other ideas. Yes there are others that are probably not able to provide care - but there is not one of us that does not have some extended family of some sort that could help. I believe it is the families responsibility to care for thier own. Chris
It was tried where I live (TX) and rates kept going up, IOW, it did nothing, try another idea rather than the conservatives blather about lawsuits. Maybe price gouging by insurance companies and drug companies, who last I checked were heavy donars to the republicans. DS
Do you want the lifesaving drugs that these companies develop? Of course you do....you just don't want to pay for it! Do you really expect a change in one area to affect a companies bottom line enough to allow for those cuts to come into play? The change would need to be a systemic change to have any effect!
Many others argue that the BLS and company get the numbers wrong all the time. One of the implications of this is that inflation is actually much higher than people realize. The implications of that have been discussed many times. It's hard to have your cake and eat it too.